while a turning point in the GLTB, my understanding is it was more of a spontaneous response to police action, rather than a planned action, like the marches and boycott.

One could make the comparison to Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts. Parks refused to give up her seat, and was subsequently arrested. This was not a first, and the story could have simply ended there. However, it was the NAACP, the boycott, and court action subsequent to her arrest that brought about change.

Stonewall was, as you correctly point out, the response to a police action. But that police action finally leads gay Americans to organize in cities throughout America. To make a long story short, without Stonewall, one never gets to San Francisco and Harvey Milk; one never gets to marriage equality. The organizing that began in Greenwich Village after Stonewall gets LGBT Americans to where they are now, much as Rosa Parks led to the NAACP organizing to destroy the last vestiges of "Separate but Equal."

That's as well as I can do without coffee.

-- Otherwise, I like the post.

But she wasn't supposed to be the spark that started it. She was really just very tired that day and refused to move to the back of the bus. The organization she was part of used it because they already had all the pieces in place.

I learned that in US History class in college. Not the regular dates of wars History, but Women's US History. I learned more US history in that class than I had in all my years of being forced to memorize the dates of our wars and land acquisitions.

Edited to add that the Civil Rights Movement in the South had already done a lot of the work to be prepared to act. Little steps.

It had been tried before with no luck, however she saw an opening and took it. Much like Stonewall was not a planned action for that day, the action was only possible due to previous actions by activists and the community.

In other words, she wasn't just a catalyst in spite of herself. She was the catalyst that she didn't expect to be, within a movement that wanted that catalyst. The bus driver's reaction was predictable, which is why it was planned.

Know thine enemy.

Not sure that this really changes the point anyone is making but simply want to clarify the mythology of Rosa being
an accidental actor in the civil rights struggle.

She had been active for 2 decades and knew exactly what she was provoking when she sat down on that bench, just another step in her long march for freedom. She started in private in the 1930s but by the 1940s was a very public actor in the civil rights movement, public in a state where being public could be a death warrant.

not the long term plan. She was not chosen to take this action on that day, in fact several others had attempted to do what she did with no luck. She saw an opening and took the plan into action - her taking that action on that day had not been planned, hence my calling her actions spontaneous, though I should have clarified what she did had been a plan she was aware of, she took the opportunity.

http://www.adl.org/education/rosa_parks.asp

& had actually tried a couple of times before. some possible candidates for a test case had been rejected because they were too young, too lower-class, too 'dark'.

http://www.core-online.org/History/colvin.htm

the first person she called after the arrest was the naacp president, and the bus boycott started getting organized that very day.

http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/systems/agentsheets/New-Vista/bus-boycott/

she said she wasn't physically tired; rather, tired of mistreatment.

http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/bio_rparks2.htm

that day she was going home not to rest after work, but to prepare for a youth workshop.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GsfezxJxEsAJ:www.piconetwork.org/tools-resources/document/0045.doc+rosa+parks+bus+boycott+test+case&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESha2k0TPWLBTHXKlOsrG4XOzu1JyJe1gffniHI0kEJgcmMsnO9nhylEbE-uFCbFsIQuNFjEzVS4qP8vnd-dxuzfwMTNBhgtBWmlyg5bRmZx-IccU9aoN5jr808aql0o9KFWrLy8&sig=AHIEtbTLsJgQgvWdibsLhPlcjr_0qTrfrA


The local NAACP already knew it was going to do a bus boycott & was *ready* to act. Not 'little steps'.

In this context, her refusal to move to the back is not a spontaneous unplanned act.

http://www.socialstudies.com/c/@10ybJGBs6We9k/Pages/article.html?article@rosaparks

true history of what happened. It is stunning to me!!

it shouldn't come as any surprise. Rosa Park's actual history is little known unless you study Black History, or as in my case Women's History.

I'm 64 years old and believe me American History was all about white men and their wars. Things like slavery were probably only taught because of the Civil War. The subject is covered in two paragraphs. Women's history is also just making fun of the Suffragette movement.

Hopefully it's different now, but I doubt it as long as white men get to decide what gets studied.

There is a documentary called Before Stonewall on Netflix I recommend to anyone interested in Civil Rights of Gay Americans.

There was a big build up both within the gay community and outside the gay community that lead to the conditions where gay people could stand up to the police at Stonewall. While it was not planned as an action, it also was not a spontaneous action. It was the result of years and years of "civil" activism with the goal of looking mainstream and fitting in. The community had a split on what approach should be used, and Stonewall is an affect of that split. The gay community in America has been visibly fighting for its rights on one level for over 100 years.

Harvey Milk and the SF Gay rights movement probably would have happened without Stonewall. The impetus for the Gay rights movement in SF were the street assaults on Gays and Lesbians, and the police indifference to them.

either--their focus was on not being beaten up and abused and harassed for just living their lives. I am sure there were registered Democrats AND registered (future log cabin) Republicans in that crowd...and people who didn't bother to vote at all.

Neither party was terribly nice to the LGBT community back when that event occurred, hell, society as a whole was pretty shitty and ignorant back then--I don't think that a gay person felt a "loyalty" to a party based on their willingness to speak for them and articulate their interests; the focus was more on preventing abuse by authorities--the organizing and goal setting came later, with the Dems doing a somewhat better job of supporting those goals than the GOP.

Many LGBT persons were actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement with MLK. While neither party was particularly nice to LGBT Americans then many LGBT people were politically active and democrats at that point. If you watch Before Stonewall they document this, as a community being highly involved with MLK, as one of the leading cause of the Stonewall Riots.

The reason for that is because he couldn't stand those racist Dixiecrats. He didn't trust either party terribly much toward the end (and who could blame him), but he could spot a southern Democrat at a hundred yards. The racist GOP of today sometimes tries to use his party registration as "proof" of something, suggesting that they aren't a racist outfit, but they are operating without context. The GOP of yesteryear is not the same animal that it is today.

A good touchstone to understand how civil rights issues "broke" in terms of party is the Civil Rights Act of 64. Check out the vote totals--they aren't "along party lines" at all. In fact, Republicans were key in delivering that vote to LBJ. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Nixon's southern strategy was still the early days of the whole GOP "race card" thing, and that wasn't an attitude that was cast in stone when Stonewall happened--it was still regarded as a 'one off.' The "racist Republican" theme didn't take hold for many years, and many northern Republicans were very pro-equal rights, were horrified by the behavior and attitudes of southern Dems and newly-minted 'racist Republicans,' and routinely voted against the southern Democrats in Congress. In fact, it was the grave failing of the DEMOCRATS that they were the "united front" of racist bastards back in the days when LBJ was prowling the corridors of the House and Senate, vote counting-- and they carried a lot of clout in Congress--there was a real difference between what I knew as a "Democrat" (from the north) and a "southern Democrat." The latter was code in my neck of the woods for "racist asshole."

As the southern strategy took hold those "southern Democrats"--like Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond--became Republicans, because they didn't like the fact that the party wasn't going to tolerate racist bullshit south of the Mason Dixon anymore.

I just don't think that Stonewall was an active expression of "progressive POVs." It was an active expression of human beings being sick and tired of being bullied, harassed, threatened and beaten by crooked and cruel cops, on top of being ripped off by mobsters (the Stonewall Inn was owned by mafiosi). It was insult, injury, and a "mad as hell/not going to take it anymore" attitude. If the riots encouraged people to become activists in future, that's all to the good, but I don't think those riots came out of a greater strategy--they came from frustration and anger and might have produced a strategy--but only after the fact.

they were present in both parties. Where as today nearly all progressives would be liberal, by default of our two party system, members of the Democratic party? (Unless Im missing something).

I still disagree with your argument. Many of the people that took part in the Riots have been interviewed and documented, in fact its quite easy to search for examples online. While there were certainly members of both parties there, I still believe the vast majority, while claiming Democratic Party membership now, were progressives at the time, regardless of registration. The very principles espoused in the riot and the following two days are at heart progressive ideals.

Edit to add:

Regardless, I think the defining thing of both Stonewall and Rosa Parks is that those actions do not belong to a political party or political group, but rather a minority group. Stonewall belongs to all gay people, regardless of political beliefs, as does the Civil Rights movement belonging to black Americans, not a political party or political group.

riots. The impetus for the riots were very essential emotions, common to us all when we are pushed too hard and too far--in the case of the rioters, it was frustration at being beaten, corralled, abused, derided, threatened, bullied, harrassed, placed in a fearful envionment, what-have-you. These are the sorts of things that irritate ANYONE, regardless of their political affiliation.

I am also saying that in 1969, neither the Democratic nor Republican parties had a terribly mature or truthful view of gay persons. They regarded them as deviant, aberrant, a danger to children, perverse, imbued with evil, "turned" by mendacious gym teachers, made that way by lackadaisical parenting and a lack of motherly love--you name the false, nasty, negative stereotype or nonsensical theory, and you could find people on both sides of the aisle who held those foolish POVs.

We agree that this particular event was not the province of a political party--it was a human rights issue, plain and simple. However, I will say that in the intervening years, the Democrats are far more progressive on the issue of civil, human and personal rights than the GOP. Not perfect, mind you, but better, certainly. The GOP delights in dog whistling on these subjects to appeal to angry white males who take issue with people of color and gays. Unfortunately for them, the ranks of angry white males are shrinking as our nation becomes more diverse, and they don't have sufficient mass to carry the day anymore. That's good news for the rest of us.

. . . major progressive changes, adopted and approved in our legislative system of government have been mostly incremental. There are still progressive issues with landmark legislation like, Brown vs. Board of Education. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well left behind the disabled and those with different sexual orientations . . .

(if you can indulge me and an excerpt from a defining essay I wrote a while back . . .)


Taking our protests to the streets and (sometimes) to the halls of Congress is a healthy flexing of our democratic system. Our legislative agenda is (historically) best served when it is initiated and advocated from the ground up, but, at some point, to convert those ideas into action, our agenda need to be assigned to our legislators we elect to public office - the caretakers and managers of the levers of our democracy.

Baynard Rustin, a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for a movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:

"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."

"Far too many movements lack both a (legislative) perspective and a sense of responsibility, and they fail because of it," Ruskin wrote.

"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin said in his book, Down the Line. "As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it. For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect."

Another important point Ruskin made in reference to unity among blacks within the movement rings true for our own diverse progressive coalitions which have massed to march together in protest, and will be advocating within the system (together or independently) for our Democratic agenda. "In a pluralistic democracy," he wrote, "unity (among we who agree) is a meaningless goal. It is far more important to form alliances with other forces in society which share common needs and common goals, and which are in general agreement over the means to achieve them."

Comprising doesn't have to mean rolling over and betraying our principles or our positions. Many protests assume that the legislative process is the dominion of the opposition, and that compromise in the system can only mean a sacrifice of principle or belief. But, our political institutions are designed for both argument and compromise. There is little room in our democracy to dictate one view or the other. While our legislators may come to office with similar goals, like ending the Iraq occupation, they, nonetheless, come to office with a myriad of ideas and approaches to achieve those goals. Those different views and approaches must be reconciled if legislation is to move out of their respective chambers and up the legislative ladder.

Addressing the struggle for civil rights in his own time, Rustin wrote that, "Confronted with a new agenda, we had to come to terms with developing new tactics. When we had absolute demands for the rights of freedom and dignity, we could insist on absolute solutions. But when you are working within the political system,you can no longer deal in absolute terms. You must be prepared to compromise, you must be prepared to make and accept concessions," he wrote.

Achieving legislative solutions to the issues and concerns which confront us will take time. That effort will also, more than likely, take even more protesting. I profess that I'm as frustrated as many here with the lack of progress or support from Congress or the White House on many progressive initiatives and ideals. However, as long as we keep our legislative goals at the head of our protests, and do what it takes to form the necessary coalitions of support to advance those legislative efforts within the system, we can assume the necessary responsibility for the consequences of our actions and transform the direction of our movements from agitation to action.

"That was the beginning of an extraordinary revolution, similar to the Montgomery Bus Boycott in that it was not expected that anything extraordinary would occur. As in the case of the women who left the Russian factory, and in the case of Rosa Parks who sat down in the white part of the bus, something began to happen, people began to protest. They began to fight for the right to live in dignity, the right essentially to be one’s self in every respect, and the right to be protected under law. In other words, people began to fight for their human rights. Gay people must continue this protest."
http://wagingnonviolence.org/2009/06/bayard-rustin-40-years-after-stonewall/

The entire Essay by Rustin can be read at this link:
http://www.illinoisprobono.org/calendarUploads/Rustin%20Documents.pdf

. . . about the outreach and alliances that Ruskin tried to forge with the very racist and exclusive labor unions as he moved from protest to encouraging legislative action?

Ruskin understood the value of seeking and achieving incremental changes through government action; even as he continued to acknowledge the value of protest and activism. I think we saw a genuine cause and effect from the OWS movement in the way that would-be and sitting politicians addressed voters. We even see some effects of that activism in the current legislative efforts and focus on the economy. Definitely, more protest is needed -- however, there is also a pressing need for legislative action, as well. We should be mindful of EVERY instigation of democracy.

alter the culture and make the legislative changes far less needed. I assume you will read the links I provided, Mr Rustin's actual writings. Here is a quote from Bayard:
"Well what do we have to do that is concrete? We have to fight forlegislation wherever we are, to
state our case clearly as blacks had to do in the South when it was profoundly
uncomfortable. Some people say to me, "Well Mr Rustin,. how long is it going to take?" Let
me point out that it doesn't take a law to get rid of a practice. The NAACP worked for sixty
years to get an antilynch law in this country. We never got an antilynch law, and now we don't
need one. It was the propaganda for the law we never got that liberated us."

. . . it was the enforcement of the federal government which guaranteed those rights.

As you can see, from both of our accounts, Mr. Rustin may well have (correctly) put his emphasis on the transformational value of protest and activism; yet, he, undeniably, suffered with strained and severed alliances from his determination to move past protests to actually achieving legislative solutions to the issues and concerns he was fighting for.

I don't think I need to tell you about the pages and pages of Rustin's and others' accounts of his life and philosophy and political efforts available to read and learn from.

Do you think we need 'hate-crime' laws today (very similar to the nature and intent of the anti-lynching laws Mr. Rustin spoke of in the essay you linked to)? Or, do you feel, as he stated here, that the change in the majority public attitude would be sufficient?

Social Security EXCLUDED groups of people and GRADUALLY included everyone.

. . . as it relates to the op's words about 'incremental change.'


from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

____ Most women and minorities were excluded from its benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.

Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”

... because that fact invalidates the contrived narrative of the "Centrists" who wish to marginalize the accomplishments and legacy of The REAL Democratic Party so that the current "New Democrats" can be viewed more favorably.
(A favorite tactic of conservatives).

The founding of Social Security was a Paradigm Shit (look it up) in the US.
It cemented in the cornerstone of a solid foundation.
In and of itself, that WAS a great achievement,
and a Great Day for America.

Paradigm Shifts are never "incremental".

. . . since those objections of yours pale in comparison to the complaints from the vast majority of working Americans who were left completely out of the initial Social Security law signed by FDR.
______________

. . . women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

...that changes the Paradigm I would be glad to.

Unfortunately, the only Paradigm Shift in the ACA,
the ONLY "foundation" it established,
is that NOW American Citizens are required to assume "Personal Responsibility",
and BUY Health Insurance, every year, from For Profit health Insurance Corporations.
If Americans refuse to assume this "Personal Responsibility",
they will be punished by the IRS.

(Remind me again WHICH Party is the Party of "Personal Responsibility",
and which party declared Health care to be a Basic Human Right?
If you don't know,
SEE: FDR, Economic Bill of Rights)


That IS The Reason I have consistently opposed the ACA.

Please show me,
in simple terms (because I'm not very smart)
How we move from:

Each American MUST Buy Health Insurance from For Profit health Insurance Corporations

TO

Publicly Owned, Government Administered, National health Insurance?

I can't see the "next step".
I can't see HOW we can Fix It without FIRST Undoing it.

Expanding Medicaid?
Sure.
Though Medicaid is a 3rd Class Health System for The Low Income Class
(Yes, Virginia, there IS two Americas),
I support THAT part of the ACA,
though the mandatory Medicaid expansion was declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
I still have some hope.


But Medicaid Expansion is no Paradigm Shift.
It isn't even anything for Democrats to Parade Around as a Victory.
It is A Given, nothing new.
That places NO cornerstones.

Keep it simple for me.

. . . the same questions that were being asked about SS laws during FDR's term. Many of the same criticisms.

You can debate the future of health care and insurance under ACA but it is a foot in the door; a 'step in the right direction.' Clearly, there aren't enough votes in Congress to mandate or establish single-payer systems for all states right now, but Senators like Bernie Sanders who voted for the act are optimistic that it can be used as a platform for further reform. I don't know how much closer you can get to an analogy of the ACA to the atmosphere and landscape surrounding SS during FDR's time


In a statement after the Supreme Court ruling, Sen. Sanders said,

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Bernie Sanders welcomed the ruling. “Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men.

It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers.

It is an especially good day for the state of Vermont, which stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal funds to help our state achieve universal health care.

In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, we ultimately need to do better. If we are serious about providing high-quality, affordable healthcare as a right, not a privilege, the real solution to America’s health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. Until then, we will remain the only major nation that does not provide health care for every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship.

in this country. Sure, Stonewall sparked something but it wasn't until just the last few years that public perceptions of gays turned away from vilification to "hey, what's the problem with being gay?" - that is what really sparked the ground shift and still, only a handful of States have chosen to "allow" equal rights for gay couples, in other words, those who don't creep us out. Drag Queens and Trans people need not apply. Ugh, but the glacial progress does continue.

Racism is alive and well in 2012, 150 years after slavery was outlawed, we still struggle with it. Man, that's glacial.

It's hard for me to imagine an equally bold step being taken these days by a Democratic president.

albeit on a lesser scale, you just didn't like it, e.g., DoJ vs MMJ Dispensaries.

But on further thought, why do you find it so hard to believe that President Obama would send in federal troops where governors stood in open defiance of the law of the land?

Would/Do you have equal reservation, should the State of Texas make good on some of its looney population, and attempt to secede?

The best way to deal with a troll is to starve it of the attention it so desperately craves.

Down here in the South we look at them, shake our heads and murmur "Bless their hearts".

What state is so utterly defiant of federal law -- and devoid of judicial or administrative ability to challenge such defiance or misconduct -- that it requires the extraordinary intervention of the federal government 'sending in troops?'

I don't think that just generally equating that action with situations we may object to is credible -- unless we can demonstrate that there are such extraordinary, imminent, or threatening actions in a state which aren't addressable through the mechanisms and remedies already provided by that state. I really find it incomprehensible that the intervention of the heavy hand of the federal government into affairs which are normally handled by states is treated as some progressive aim. Think, pot laws, for instance.

Your standard is an unreasonable, incomplete, and mostly inapplicable one.

I for one found it inspirational at the time.

. . . but you've revealed a false romanticism which doesn't really acknowledge that we have a very different relationship with government than we had in the '50's.

The feds wouldn't stand a chance putting troops in the schools to enforce integration these days, the awesome power of facebook would sap their precious bodily fluids and they would submit to the authoritah of dah peeples.

. . . actually, the federal government is insinuated in states to the extent that it's sometimes indistinguishable from state law and regs. The enforcers are right there to administer the regulations and to process complaints and grievances and address abuses. The courts have their monitors, as well, sometimes walking in the same shoes as the jurists.

Addressing your original point, there are myriads of steps available for citizens before a president has the need and providence to 'send in troops'.

I'd think you'd be a little more appreciative of the impact of an enhanced public discourse enabled by an expansive social media network (or were you being serious?)

I didn't expect to find people who thought the federal role in desegregation to be a bad thing here on DU.

I guess I'm starting to hit culture shock here in the Democratic party.

. . . and beyond criticism. Most of these landmark laws didn't resemble the comprehensive and inclusive legislation that bear the same names today.

Personally, I believe in the primacy of the federal government in the realization and perpetuation of rights guaranteed under the school segregation laws, if that's that you're referring to. It's indisputable that the rights enumerated under the 14th and 15th Amendments, for example, were just abstractions without the federal government stepping in to defend those rights.

That's a very different observation, though, than asserting that there's some need (or acceptability) for the federal government to send in troops today. I still have to wonder where you see that need? I don't think that makes for progressive philosophy to expect that extraordinary intervention today, unless, of course, you can demonstrate some breakdown in the state govt./ judicial system that comes close to what we experienced in the days of Brown.

Just an old man reminiscing about when it felt like the government was actually on his side.

. . . that there's a real person behind all of the cynicism and snark that comes from 'Fumesucker'; sometimes a thoughtful intellectual there, as well. You really need a red light or something to signal when you've turned the zingers off if you expect me to approach you with my dukes down.

What happened then was a good thing, it was the social networks of those towns that kept Jim Crow in place and it took outside force to change it.

Edit: Dope slap for stupid mistake

"The Stonewall riots inspired LGBT people throughout the country to organize in support of gay rights, and within two years after the riots, gay rights groups had been started in nearly every major city in the United States."
http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/06/449-stonewall.html

"Recently released arrest records prove what many historians and veterans of that night have been saying for years—that lesbians, transgender people, and people of color of all persuasions were at Stonewall that night.

Before I moved to New York City at 24 years old a decade ago, I always believed that the Stonewall Riots, whose 40th anniversary was commemorated on June 28th, happened because a bunch of testy queens still grieving over the death of Judy Garland, took out their frustrations on unsuspecting police for 3 days. Not only is this persistent rumor false, but it obscures the race, class and gender dynamics of the riots. It also demeans the conditions that created the riot. Unfortunately those conditions still largely persist in the lives of poor and working class LGBT blacks and Latinos in New York City today."
http://thegrio.com/2009/06/30/in-the-1960s-new-york/

Read and learn.

This was what I had understood Stonewall to be about.

You owe it to others to be clear. Are you saying you read these links and found that you were incorrect about your characterization of that important event in history? That you opined about that which you had no knowledge of?
Why not be clear about what you are saying?
Did you post that tripe simply to take a swipe at gay people? What was the point you strained to make?

none of this, other than my having read the links.

But your message is as loud and clear as it was in that snarky Stonewall comment in your OP.

the poster 'read links' about the history. I would like to see some of these links to read for myself.

One document provides additional detail about the previously known arrest of David Van Ronk, a heterosexual folk singer (who was incorrectly described as an actor) who was accused of assaulting an officer “with an unknown object.” Mr. Van Ronk eventually pleaded guilty to harassment, a violation. He was later sued by the police officer, Gilbert Weisman, for assault, and had to pay a fine.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/police-records-document-the-stonewall-uprising/

TV and video games feed the need for instant gratification.

But you are right, most social changes come about at a glacial pace.

much less to discuss. You should read Rustin's 'From Montgomery To Stonewall' and read what he has to say about how activism and legislation work. It is interesting to me that in this post you say that each of those events had nothing to do with progressives, except that they organized others to take action. Upthread you claim Stonewall was not part of the movement because it was not organized in advance. That's your claim. Organization is either without value or it is the defining aspect of a protest, depending on which post of yours one reads.

and Stonewall was largely what I thought it was.

But your conclusion from what I said:

What were your 'two separate points'? Is it not possible for you to simply make your points?
The coyness and evasion are not aspects of the word 'strong' in my opinion.

bold, visionary progressives (as the respondent claimed) versus the unplanned actions of a disenfranchised people to affect change (as was my statement.

I think your interest is blinding you to what I actually said ... I suspect you read what I wrote as a swipe at the GLTB community or of the significance of Stonewall; I have done neither.

you are going on about. I asked you several times to say what you meant. I offered up a few different perspectives on the event from people like Bayard Rustin, in hopes that we could discuss your view of the Stonewall uprising. Thus far, you have not joined in.
Many straight people are unaware that Stonewall involved lots of women, people of color, transsexual people, not just a bunch of gay white guys. Almost no one in the straight community is aware that a straight guy was one of the most badly beaten by the police, he was walking past and the cops beat the shit out of him.
Why don't they know these things? Because they feel entitled to spew opinion about an event they will then refuse to discuss.

I have not joined in on the discussion of Stonewall because it is, in the context of MY OP, a very small part.

That's not to say or imply that Stonewall is not a significant, important Civil Rights event. But if you wish to discuss Stonewall ... Maybe you should start your own thread; rather than, hi-jacking mine?

As I said to you above, many uninformed straight folks feel entitled to spew opinion about an event they will then refuse to discuss. This is why they remain ignorant of the facts.
If you don't want to discuss it, don't exploit the event in a negative attack on the people you don't agree with.
You dragged this from another posters OP which was locked. This is TWO threads in which you felt compelled and entitled to make mention of your dismissive opinion of the Stonewall Uprising. TWO. And yet when your declarations were not accepted as wisdom by me and others, you refuse to discuss what YOU brought up in TWO different threads.
You bring the subject to the table, then you don't want to deal with the facts about it. What a piece of nasty, evasive rhetoric you typed up all over DU in two threads.
My advice is that if you are unable to deal with discussing a topic, don't make an OP about it. Your lack of education about Stonewall is apparent. But you as a straight person feel entitled to preach on the subject without being countered by informed others.

But please explain how I have been dismissive of Stonewall ... despite my stating that it is a significant and important Civil Rights event.

I think you have more going on than my post ... and that I cannot help.

Peace

Too bad so-called progressives will not get it.

I agree with you both. Baby steps are vital. Marches are vital. It takes the people out there to get angry enough to cause govt. to change. However, until our system for electing officials and representatives in government no longer runs on the mega-money of corporations, we will continue to be battling the control of the govt. by the powerful.

but I understand why it was locked ... it violated the DU rule regarding critizing DU and its membership.

Here's the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022082507

it's a statement critical of free republic-type behavior

it's a statement critical of free republic-type behavior, as practiced here at DU.

Or maybe you're being sarcastic, who the hell can tell any more?

nice try.

Progressives are fighting against time to help people and make things fair.

teabaggers are trying to turn things back and fight against such things as support for the middle class, improvements to working lives.

the mission, it's the tactics that they have in common.

attempts voter suppression, calls to kill?

those are not the tactics I am referring to. I'm speaking of the unwillingness to recognize that in order to govern in our form of divided government, one MUST compromise. And a willingness to recognize that half a loaf is better than no loaf ... doubly so, when the no loaf came about because "we can't let them push us around" egoism.

and then run from it like a coward.

Compromising is okay but we're not dealing with people that are willing to compromise to a center so bending over backwards and giving them 150% of what they want even though they will still denounce and vote against it (see: HCR) is stupid.

The Right Wing is negotiating in bad faith and between Clinton and Obama it seems we give them everything they want for very little to nothing in return. That progressives/liberals have been 100 steps ahead on everything policy wise for the last few decades is ignored in the DLC/New Democrat/Third Way line of thinking. They don't care about any of that. They care about maintaining the status quo for their rich benefactors, many of which that are the same as the funders of the right wingers.

Washington is about appearance and appeasing constituents with names of bills rather than the substance in them.

So attack Progressives all you want but you're on the wrong board if you expect to be vindicated for trash talking people here. And regardless of Stonewall, Progressives WERE at the center of all of the major civil rights movements in this country. It doesn't matter if those Progressives were labeled Democrat or Republican back then because those labels are irrelevant to the ideologies of those same parties today. If you stood up for Women's Rights when most people thought they didn't deserve them: YOU WERE PROGRESSIVE. If you stood up for Blacks and Minorities in the face of an overwhelming amount of racists: YOU WERE PROGRESSIVE. If you stood up for equality for LGBT people. YOU WERE PROGRESSIVE.

PROGRESSIVE is by definition someone who is forward thinking. Not someone trapped in the archaic discriminatory beliefs of the past.

Inaccuracy #1;

the majority of "Progressives" that I have problems with (and strangely it's mostly on this Board, rather than in real life) is they present as a cross between the teaparty, in their intractableness, uncompromisingness, and their thinking they speak for everyone; and the Ron Paul Libertarians, in their running from the liberal label, their genuiene passion, and their unwillingness/inability to recognize that wihile their goal/philosophy sounds good, it is unworkable in real life, absent some major social shifts.

Finally. Some insight.

K&R

Now, the sheep sit in front of the TV and are told what and how to think. They do not want to see through the facade. Our whole system of government and the media are now designed to get the rich richer, and for the poor to remain ignorant and in poverty! We are now just a labor source and they are not through softening us up to get our labor rates down to be equalized with the rest of the world. That is why education is not important because they can use engineers from India, do their R&D overseas ... They got THEIR politicians to enact THEIR desired trade agreements. I guess Americans will rise up when they can no longer afford cable TV. Maybe then after the brainwashing stops they will wake the fu*k up! One can only hope!

The thread this came from was locked for that reason.

Why was it locked? There doesn't seem to be anything in the OP that would warrant a lock.

It was not that one President waved a wand and suddenly everything changed. We are a government of people - it was organizing ordinary people.

from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29


____ Most women and minorities were excluded from its benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.

Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”



. . . just a reminder that most legislative progress has been historically incremental, even with passage of sweeping initiatives. FDR is the epitome of leadership, yet he was as constrained by the politics of his time as our legislators find themselves today. Actually more so today, as FDR didn't have to get 60 votes to advance his initiatives.

Would FDR find DU as hostile to his historic achievement, as many here today regard the President's own historical health law?

Incremental change is somehow categorized as weakness these days. If a struggle isn't wrapped up in the time one can complete a video game, then it's seen as an epic fail. We have no patience anymore.

categorized as weaknesss by those that live that incremental change all day and everyday in their off-line worlds; but somehow expect the political world to operate differently.

People are running out of patience because they see the degradation of the middle class and the poor for DECADES now and are tired of the chasm between the rich and the poor. This impatience has been a long time coming. Every society has a tipping point where the unemployment is high enough that people finally wake up and start to take notice that they are starving to death while the rich are gorging themselves.

I'm talking about wages right here in the US.

You think SS started only for widows and orphans?



Um, you may not know it but the first applicant for SS was a retired autoworker in Cleveland

it was started for widows, orhans and the elderly. That makes all the difference in this discussion! Not!

Just like literally a hundred years of civil rights activism lead to the Civil Rights Act. It would have never come without the thousands of steps taken by starting with one step.

...the splashy finale could be entirely privatized SS !!